"Women needs to face facts about the link between rape and drinking"

Candie wrote: »

I don't think victims of crimes like that should ever feel they're guilty of contributory negligence by trusting someone in the wrong scenario, or having their judgement impaired by drink.

What about a situation where both parties are drunk?

Sorry in advance for being graphic, but for clarity, it's necessary to cite specific circumstances.

A woman knowingly gets very intoxicated on a first date, her judgment is seriously impaired; she is too drunk to consent, but performs oral sex on a man. There is no suggestion of violence. Upon police questioning, the act is freely admitted by the man, and therefore we have a prima facie sexual assault.

You might say, the man should have known she was too drunk to consent. Fair enough.

But suppose the man was equally drunk, or more drunk. He has no defence in law.

So citing intoxication is available to one person in resolving the dispute, but not to the other, despite the fact that both freely chose to become intoxicated.

So one course of action is reasonable, but it puts an unreasonable expectation on the woman - or man - to avoid being raped, or the conversation will turn to what THEY did wrong.

But that is not what the law says.

I am sympathetic to anybody who is the victim of sexual violence, but I don't understand why there is such a widespread presumption that it is women who are victims of unreasonable expectation.

Certainly, there are plenty of idiots on the internet who have serious issues with women in general. But those people don't administer justice. I'd be more worried about the possible unfairness that is actually embedded in our legal system.

blue note

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What about a situation where both parties are drunk?

Sorry in advance for being graphic, but for clarity, it's necessary to cite specific circumstances.

A woman knowingly gets very intoxicated on a first date, her judgment is seriously impaired; she is too drunk to consent, but performs oral sex on a man. There is no suggestion of violence. Upon police questioning, the act is freely admitted by the man, and therefore we have a prima facie sexual assault.

You might say, the man should have known she was too drunk to consent. Fair enough.

But suppose the man was equally drunk, or more drunk. He has no defence in law.

So citing intoxication is available to one person in resolving the dispute, but not to the other, despite the fact that both freely chose to become intoxicated.

But that is not what the law says.

I am sympathetic to anybody who is the victim of sexual violence, but I don't understand why there is such a widespread presumption that it is women who are victims of unreasonable expectation.

Certainly, there are plenty of idiots on the internet who have serious issues with women in general. But those people don't administer justice. I'd be more worried about the possible unfairness that is actually embedded in our legal system.

That's not what the thread is about. This is about whether or not it's okay to give women advice on ways to lessen their chance of being a victim. There have been lots of threads on consent, this isn't one.

blue note wrote: »

That's not what the thread is about. This is about whether or not it's okay to give women advice on ways to lessen their chance of being a victim. There have been lots of threads on consent, this isn't one.

Perhaps your first concern should be that your mod stripes have disappeared.

I responded to a specific point. I don't believe you get to decide whether either of those points are relevant.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By linking women's consumption of alcohol to their increased risk of being raped, she is suggesting that women are responsible for the behaviour of rapists.

No, there's no connection between the alcohol content in the woman's blood and the behaviour of the rapist being implied by anyone here, . . . .except perhaps yourself?

What the journalist is saying is that being drunk leaves a woman (or man) more vulnerable to being assaulted or raped. That is simply undeniable. It does not transfer blame for the rapist's action to anyone else other than the rapist. Being drunk decreases powers of observation, decreases ability to flee, and decreases ability to make decisions quickly. Do you disagree??

While we're on the subject, there are other things that leave a person more vulnerable to attack: being intellectually impaired (being unable to judge the intent of someone), being physically slow (unable to flee), being very young (that's why children are considered vulnerable), being under the influence of the abuser (so, for example college students can be especially vulnerable to the inappropriate advances of a lecturer or coach), being visibly different in appearance (physical deformity, skin colour, height issues etc. etc.which could draw ridicule from an abuser) but while we all know this is true it in no way suggests that such people are to blame in any way for the acts of an aggressor / abuser.

So why is it considered taboo to point out the vulnerability of being drunk in any situation?

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know you're being ironic, but I feel obliged to point out that it's perfectly possible for a person to enjoy a drink or two without becoming drunk.

Man or Woman.

Nobody here (well ok, I've not read the entire thread) is attempting to be a killjoy.

Or maybe when you describe yourself as being a member of "us silly women" you're admitting yourself to be a member of that tiny minority among the female population who really cannot apply reason?

SVJKarate wrote: »

No, there's no connection between the alcohol content in the woman's blood and the behaviour of the rapist being implied by anyone here, . . . .except perhaps yourself?

What the journalist is saying is that being drunk leaves a woman (or man) more vulnerable to being assaulted or raped. That is simply undeniable. It does not transfer blame for the rapist's action to anyone else other than the rapist. Being drunk decreases powers of observation, decreases ability to flee, and decreases ability to make decisions quickly. Do you disagree??

While we're on the subject, there are other things that leave a person more vulnerable to attack: being intellectually impaired (being unable to judge the intent of someone), being physically slow (unable to flee), being very young (that's why children are considered vulnerable), being under the influence of the abuser (so, for example college students can be especially vulnerable to the inappropriate advances of a lecturer or coach), being visibly different in appearance (physical deformity, skin colour, height issues etc. etc.which could draw ridicule from an abuser) but while we all know this is true it in no way suggests that such people are to blame in any way for the acts of an aggressor / abuser.

So why is it considered taboo to point out the vulnerability of being drunk in any situation?

The above is all very true, alcohol consumption, drug ingestion, etc, an infinite list of things really, can lower people's inhibitions and impair their judgement, increasing exponentially their risk of being vulnerable. The problem for me is that while many things can increase a persons risk of being vulnerable, there's a missing link between a person who is vulnerable, and that person being raped. The missing link is the person who rapes them.

Everyone in society instinctively protects themselves, and they take what they rationalise for themselves are reasonable steps to protect themselves, one example is staying with their group of friends, and each of them looking out for each other, share a taxi home, if they meet a guy in the club, let their mates know where they're going, etc, there's an endless list. It's very easy for anyone to point out after the fact, all the reasons why a person was raped, and the number of ways they left themselves vulnerable. But what use is that after the fact?

What are one person's reasonable expectations with regard to their personal responsibility, are someone else's unreasonable expectations when they want to go out and let their hair down. I'm not suggesting anyone shouldn't tell anyone that if they get drunk, they're increasing their risk of being raped. I'm just not sure how many people are going to pay attention to that message. They haven't in the past, and they're not about to now. So my thinking behind the whole idea is this:

The whole holding women responsible for getting drunk, is some people's answer to people who would hold would hold men responsible for rape. Meanwhile, most people in society will carry on about their lives with the thoughts of raping someone, or being raped, not even entering their heads. That's really as it should be IMO. There are ways to address the issue of rape prevention, but both groups holding each other responsible isn't actually doing anyone in society any favours IMO, nor is anyone telling anyone anything they aren't aware of already.

The Rape of Lucretia

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True. But no one is suggesting they shouldnt do either. But can nevertheless recognise that both increase the risk. Its a question of managing that risk sensibly.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So my thinking behind the whole idea is this:

The whole holding women responsible for getting drunk, is some people's answer to people who would hold would hold men responsible for rape.

Did you read that sentence before posting?

I think what you're trying to say, among the mist of words you wrote, is that some people will use the "drunken woman" argument to deny the rapist's responsibility for his crime? And to avoid them having any credibility, we must not point out how being drunk leaves you more vulnerable to crime?

I can only respond by saying some people are idiots, and we should not be so fragile that we can't listen to a silly argument and dismiss it as silly.

Some people deny that gun crime is linked to the number of guns in society. Despite all the overwhelming proof, some people will trot out the "guns don't kill people" nonsense because it's easier than accepting responsibility for their own actions.

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As a precaution, in case the ironic tone was only in my own head when I read your post.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

GT_TDI_150

Lads where does it stop?

Should women stop living alone in appartments?

Should women nothave one night stands for fear the next night when she says no to a guy ... "she had a rep and was well up for it" gets thrown out after the fact?

Stop driving to work alone incase they get approached by a rapist?

Women should be able to live their lives how they see fit and not fear sexual assault and or rape.

The man is 100% responsable for a rape, no matter how drunk, sexy, lonely, pretty the woman appeared to him.

Next thing we'll blame pedo victims for looking too young..

stoplooklisten

What next? Someone will be murdered, and then where are we? Drive-by shootings in the night, it'll be like "Boyz N The Hood" and we'll have whores selling their wares on the street and the pimps will be using crack to keep the whores under control, I'm going now to lock myself in the basement until they catch that fella, goodbye to you

SVJKarate wrote: »

Did you read that sentence before posting?

I think what you're trying to say, among the mist of words you wrote, is that some people will use the "drunken woman" argument to deny the rapist's responsibility for his crime? And to avoid them having any credibility, we must not point out how being drunk leaves you more vulnerable to crime?

I can only respond by saying some people are idiots, and we should not be so fragile that we can't listen to a silly argument and dismiss it as silly.

I can only respond by saying that some people are indeed idiots, particularly journalists who want to "start a conversation" about "drink culture", or "rape culture", and trust me, I'm not so fragile that I can't listen to a silly argument. I'll dismiss it as silly because it is silly, and it does nothing to address either the issue of excessive drinking, nor do such conversations do anything to address the issue of rape.

Some people deny that gun crime is linked to the number of guns in society. Despite all the overwhelming proof, some people will trot out the "guns don't kill people" nonsense because it's easier than accepting responsibility for their own actions.

That'll be "gun culture"...

SeanW

I'm going to throw the cat among the pigeons here and suggest that there are three separate issues being conflated, either through an erroneous thought process or because of malice. Those issues are:

Who is responsible for a crime, the victim or the perpetrator?
Is is reasonable to advise potential victims of crime, steps that they can take to limit their potential exposure to crime?
Can persons other than the perpetrator be found guilty by association given their sex, race etc?

Along with all sane people, I think we can all agree that for question 1, the answer is "the perpetrator" in all cases, regarding all crimes. That includes rape, (and false accusations thereof), robbery, assault (whether sexual or otherwise), injuries caused by drunk drivers in automobile accidents and so on.

That leaves Question 2, if we assign fault solely to perpetrators, what is wrong with offering potential victims of crime, reasonable steps to avoid trouble?

Let's flip this around with a hypothetical. Say you're a white person, and you take a stroll late at night through Compton, Los Angeles, (an African American community that has a lot of crime) looking like a fish out of water and waving a new $1000 iPhone about the place. You saunter down a dark alley past a shedload of Crip gangbangers with blue bandanas. They beat you half to death, cause you permanent brain damange and take your phone.
Now take my 3 questions above.

Who was at fault? Again, obviously the gangsters, and the gangsters only.
Could you have prevented this, or at least made less likely? Yes, in the first instance by avoiding the entire district if possible, failing that by taking better preparations, and/or while there, focusing more on situational awareness and watching for trouble to avoid during ones time there.
Would it be reasonable to blame unrelated 3rd parties by association? Would it be reasonable for all black people to have to defend themselves with #NotAllBlackPeople? Would it be reasonable for schools worldwide to allow KKK members to target black students in schools with "non-robbery courses" that demonised the students and patronising told them how easy it is not to join gangs and smash random strangers skulls in violent robberies?

I think most people would firmly agree with me that the answer to all these questions is clearly NO.

GT_TDI_150

SeanW wrote: »

I'm going to throw the cat among the pigeons here and suggest that there are three separate issues being conflated, either through an erroneous thought process or because of malice. Those issues are:
Who is responsible for a crime, the victim or the perpetrator?

Is is reasonable to advise potential victims of crime, steps that they can take to limit their potential exposure to crime?

Can persons other than the perpetrator be found guilty by association given their sex, race etc?

Along with all sane people, I think we can all agree that for question 1, the answer is "the perpetrator" in all cases, regarding all crimes. That includes rape, (and false accusations thereof), robbery, assault (whether sexual or otherwise), injuries caused by drunk drivers in automobile accidents and so on.

That leaves Question 2, if we assign fault solely to perpetrators, what is wrong with offering potential victims of crime, reasonable steps to avoid trouble?

Let's flip this around with a hypothetical. Say you're a white person, and you take a stroll late at night through Compton, Los Angeles, (an African American community that has a lot of crime) looking like a fish out of water and waving a new $1000 iPhone about the place. You saunter down a dark alley past a shedload of Crip gangbangers with blue bandanas. They beat you half to death, cause you permanent brain damange and take your phone.
Now take my 3 questions above.
Who was at fault? Again, obviously the gangsters, and the gangsters only.

Could you have prevented this, or at least made less likely? Yes, in the first instance by avoiding the entire district if possible, failing that by taking better preparations, and/or while there, focusing more on situational awareness and watching for trouble to avoid during ones time there.

Would it be reasonable to blame unrelated 3rd parties by association? Would it be reasonable for all black people to have to defend themselves with #NotAllBlackPeople? Would it be reasonable for schools worldwide to allow KKK members to target black students in schools with "non-robbery courses" that demonised the students and patronising told them how easy it is not to join gangs and smash random strangers skulls in violent robberies?

I think most people would firmly agree with me that the answer to all these questions is clearly NO.

But where does it stop?

Do we tell women not to by ground floor appartments? tell women not to go out after 8pm? Dont wear clothes that will reveal skin,....

Is 'taking measures that minimise your risk' not mightly close to a middle eastern type mind set?

Just to show where we dont want to end up ... There was a dutch lady in Qatar who had her flat broken into and was raped ... she reported it o the police and found her self arrested for having extra marital sex, she got convicted and deported, he got 120 lashes.

SeanW wrote: »

[*]Is is reasonable to advise potential victims of crime, steps that they can take to limit their potential exposure to crime?

Mind if I flip it around again?

Is it reasonable to advise potential rapists of steps they can take to limit their potential to commit rape?

That leaves Question 2, if we assign fault solely to perpetrators, what is wrong with offering potential victims of crime, reasonable steps to avoid trouble?

Because there's no such thing as a potential rape victim, just as there is no such thing as a potential rapist.

Let's flip this around with a hypothetical. Say you're a white person, and you take a stroll late at night through Compton, Los Angeles, (an African American community that has a lot of crime) looking like a fish out of water and waving a new $1000 iPhone about the place. You saunter down a dark alley past a shedload of Crip gangbangers with blue bandanas. They beat you half to death, cause you permanent brain damange and take your phone.

Aren't you putting forward a foregone conclusion there to suit your argument? Well I suppose when you make up the hypothetical scenario, it's completely under your control. That isn't the case when someone is raped.

SeanW wrote: »

I'm going to throw the cat among the pigeons here and suggest that there are three separate issues being conflated, either through an erroneous thought process or because of malice. Those issues are:
Who is responsible for a crime, the victim or the perpetrator?

Is is reasonable to advise potential victims of crime, steps that they can take to limit their potential exposure to crime?

Can persons other than the perpetrator be found guilty by association given their sex, race etc?

Along with all sane people, I think we can all agree that for question 1, the answer is "the perpetrator" in all cases, regarding all crimes. That includes rape, (and false accusations thereof), robbery, assault (whether sexual or otherwise), injuries caused by drunk drivers in automobile accidents and so on.

That leaves Question 2, if we assign fault solely to perpetrators, what is wrong with offering potential victims of crime, reasonable steps to avoid trouble?

Let's flip this around with a hypothetical. Say you're a white person, and you take a stroll late at night through Compton, Los Angeles, (an African American community that has a lot of crime) looking like a fish out of water and waving a new $1000 iPhone about the place. You saunter down a dark alley past a shedload of Crip gangbangers with blue bandanas. They beat you half to death, cause you permanent brain damange and take your phone.
Now take my 3 questions above.
Who was at fault? Again, obviously the gangsters, and the gangsters only.

Could you have prevented this, or at least made less likely? Yes, in the first instance by avoiding the entire district if possible, failing that by taking better preparations, and/or while there, focusing more on situational awareness and watching for trouble to avoid during ones time there.

Would it be reasonable to blame unrelated 3rd parties by association? Would it be reasonable for all black people to have to defend themselves with #NotAllBlackPeople? Would it be reasonable for schools worldwide to allow KKK members to target black students in schools with "non-robbery courses" that demonised the students and patronising told them how easy it is not to join gangs and smash random strangers skulls in violent robberies?

I think most people would firmly agree with me that the answer to all these questions is clearly NO.

So where's "rape central" then? Maybe the rapists have special headbands so we know to avoid them?
Is it in the homes of the family members or friends of the victims, being statistically more likely? Or in their own home?
Is it any man at all that might be out in public at the same time the would be victim is? How does that tie in with notallmen?
It's rather a bizarre attempt at an analogy

It seems bizarre that it's preferable to some that women should wander about in a constant state of fear of attack from any man any where any time and is she doing enough, if she looks at him is that an invitation, if she replies politely is that an invitation, if she smiles and has a conversation is that an invitation, but god forbid the feelings of any particular gentleman might be hurt because #notallmen by which he really means not him

Dyr

bluewolf wrote: »

It seems bizarre that it's preferable to some that women should wander about in a constant state of fear of attack from any man any where any time and is she doing enough, if she looks at him is that an invitation, if she replies politely is that an invitation, if she smiles and has a conversation is that an invitation, but god forbid the feelings of any particular gentleman might be hurt because #notallmen by which he really means not him

anymore straw men in the back there or did ye bring them all out?

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

But where does it stop?

So what your trying to say is people should just take no precautions at all to keep themselves safe because you feel like making silly suggestions about "where does it stop"

I wouldn't even suggest women don't get drunk, I'd be a hypocrite if I said that's has I get drunk myself every week but even then you can make sure to do it around friends etc.

I think I'll walk to work tomorrow in the middle of the road as if I walk in the path sure where does it stop, will I be banned from walking!!!

Bambi wrote: »

anymore straw men in the back there or did ye bring them all out?

#notallKKK

bluewolf wrote: »

#notallKKK

I can't believe I'm giving this a "thanks" . . . but it's a good one

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

But where does it stop?

Do we tell women not to . . . . .

It stops when you realise you don't have the right to tell women not to exercise their constitutional rights, but you can offer advice on the basis that it's reasonable advice and aligns with the class of advice you'd give to men.

"Don't get wasted drunk" applies equally to sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and friends of all genders. The advice implies no transfer of blame for any future crime that may befall a victim.

Offering advice on what to wear is going to be treated with scorn unless it's based on the idea that an outfit is inappropriate for the occasion ("are you sure you want to wear that bikini out in the snow?") rather than based on the premise that a man might lose control of his senses if he sees her in a party outfit.

Sand

bluewolf wrote: »

It seems bizarre that it's preferable to some that women should wander about in a constant state of fear of attack from any man any where any time

Given men are the targets of 80% of violence, most men are aware of the possibility of attack and will adjust their behaviour - i.e. I do not wander down dark alleys at night. Men are not in a constant state of fear, but nobody is saying women should be either: all that is being said is that everyone, men and women, should not drink to levels where they leave themselves vulnerable.

SVJKarate wrote: »

It stops when you realise you don't have the right to tell women not to exercise their constitutional rights, but you can offer advice on the basis that it's reasonable advice and aligns with the class of advice you'd give to men.

"Don't get wasted drunk" applies equally to sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and friends of all genders. The advice implies no transfer of blame for any future crime that may befall a victim.

Offering advice on what to wear is going to be treated with scorn unless it's based on the idea that an outfit is inappropriate for the occasion ("are you sure you want to wear that bikini out in the snow?") rather than based on the premise that a man might lose control of his senses if he sees her in a party outfit.

But do you not think people know all this advice already? I mean, that's what makes common sense, common, isn't it?

Dyr

Sand wrote: »

Men are not in a constant state of fear, but nobody is saying women should be either: all that is being said is that everyone, men and women, should not drink to levels where they leave themselves vulnerable.

Thats all sensible and logical but if your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on then you have to wheel out a few straw men, otherwise sure you might as well just admit you're wrong

#sillygirlthings

Sand wrote: »

Given men are the targets of 80% of violence, most men are aware of the possibility of attack and will adjust their behaviour - i.e. I do not wander down dark alleys at night.

No they won't, because they aren't aware of all the potential risks, and that's why they are the targets of 80% of violence (I'm not even going to bother arguing the semantics of that bizarre statistic which has nothing to do with women who are raped).

Men are not in a constant state of fear, but nobody is saying women should be either: all that is being said is that everyone, men and women, should not drink to levels where they leave themselves vulnerable.

That's not at all what Niamh Horan said though, is it?

The only reason I for one don't live in a constant state of fear is because I have no interest in entertaining the scaremongering and sheer nonsense being put out there by some people who are on a mission to the bottom of the victimhood barrel and would want the rest of society to live in a perpetually vigilant state. That's both mentally and physically exhausting, for anyone!!

Dyr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The only reason I for one don't live in a constant state of fear is because I have no interest in entertaining the scaremongering and sheer nonsense being put out there by some people who are on a mission to the bottom of the victimhood barrel and would want the rest of society to live in a perpetually vigilant state. That's both mentally and physically exhausting, for anyone!!

you need a thread of your own where you can reply to your own posts rather than reply to other peoples posts while not addressing any of the content in them

How do you manage to drive a car every day, I'd say that level of vigilance must be mentally and physically exhausting.